Your Response

yes it means we the people are not getting the votes we cast. how can the popular vote cast one guy as winner but the electoral vote says the other one won?? i thought we the people get to choose who we want.

Your Response

Your Response

Some did. Some of us still do, in spite of evidence to the contrary ... there's actually a study on it that's been published, majority rule makes bad decisions when voters are given A vs. B options on a complicated issue -- like healthcare for example. Study defined "bad" as not in the best financial interest of the majority of voters.But I still believe in Mr. Jefferson's "grand experiment" -- his name for the Constitution. Just needs some amendments to repair the voting process.

Your Response

Your Response

The reason that the founding fathers created the Electoral College was because people weren't informed enough to make the final decisions. Now that we have the internet and T.V., I think we're informed enough to just ba<x>se the election on the popular vote.

Your Response

They're never gonna get rid of it though, It's because California and New York are usually Democratic with a lot of electoral votes. They don't wanna loose one of the only things that has kept them winning.

Your Response

Umm, *well* informed by TV? Massively overinformed, blathered at, pushed into no-compromise partisanship, given sound bites when thoughtful comments on the really difficult issues come up. The intertubes, same or worse, almost everyone just listens to their own echo chamber. Don't know the answer, agreed that the EC has outlived its purpose. Don't know how to make it part of a fixed election system, either, not confident that natural error rates and gerrymandering will make the system more representative.

Your Response

Depends on who you ask. Liberals cried when Bush won the electoral vote and ***** (Gore) won the popular vote. Hmm I wonder what they think now that situations have reversed? HA not need to tell me I already know. :p

Your Response

The glaring problem with the popular vote idea is that it disenfranchises less densely populated ares, the big population centers would always be deciding the outcome. sort of like two wolves and a goat voting on what's for dinner.

Your Response

No, not really. First of all, for that to happen the popular vote would need to be extremely close with no candidate having a majority of the vote. There is no mandate so theres no real decisive winner. Secondly, on the vast majority of important issues, theres no difference between the 2 candidates anyway.